Long live our glorious leader.

[Klaus]

Wikipedia is IMO, the worst thing to ever happen to the collection of knowledge. I'm not saying that the old hardback encyclopedias are the way to go either. I welcome and embrace the digital age, and the 'idea' of wikipedia. An evergrowing library of knowledge for the masses. It should be an amazing thing. Sadly, I see wikipedia as a punchline to a sad joke than anything else.

Yes, a lot of times, Wikipedia can be ok, and it has its uses I guess, but the simple fact that I can go over there right now, and change the history of WWII to whatever I want it to be, leads to the basis of the problem. There is no filter to make sure that you are posting unbiased, factual information. There is no filter to make sure that articles like the one that was linked are based in FACT and not written with biased sensationalist motives. It works on all sides of the issue as well. Knowledge differs from anything else because of the absence of a noticeable opinion. Knowledge is the accumulated facts about something. Merging knowledge and opinion leads to inaccuracies, and it isn't relegated to just wikipedia. Far more sacred things have been muddled by opinions and biased revisions.

I guess it is the one thing on the net that will get me riled up anymore. When I first found Wikipedia so many years ago, I immediately though of Winston in 1984. The first thing out of my mouth was:

"Revisionist History here we come"

The fact that the article linked was there is proof of the failings and trappings of Wikipedia. If you can find it on Wikipedia, and it is truthful, factual, and at least marginally unbiased, then you should be able to find it at/on more respectable sources else as well.

Most quality wiki articles include a bibliography of references. If you doubt the veracity of what you read, you can check the references, do your own research. It's a great place to get an overview of a topic and a starting list of materials where you can learn more. If it's important enough, this will lead you to even more resources that aren't listed on the wiki, and you can decide for yourself what "truth" is. But Jester is correct - if you update the WWII page to say that "No Jews were harmed during the making of this conflict", someone will correct it right quick.

Finally, most articles are about topics that nobody cares to "revise" (except in the manner of unfocused valdalism). If I want to know the history of Guy Fawkes Day, I don't expect there's some nutjob out there trying to convince me it was some sort of coverup for an alien landing...